Looking at the results, I can't help but notice how significant is the effect of E85 in the fuel efficiency scoring. It somewhat eclipses the effect of including time in the equation. Did that catch anyone off?
Printable View
Looking at the results, I can't help but notice how significant is the effect of E85 in the fuel efficiency scoring. It somewhat eclipses the effect of including time in the equation. Did that catch anyone off?
I do not see how it has any different effect than before. It still uses a ~1.4 factor.Quote:
Originally posted by squirrelboy:
Looking at the results, I can't help but notice how significant is the effect of E85 in the fuel efficiency scoring. It somewhat eclipses the effect of including time in the equation. Did that catch anyone off?
Time plays a significant role in efficiency. ~2.8 liters gasoline equivalent makes you come 4th or 13th, a ~35 point range.
Squirrelboy,Quote:
Originally posted by squirrelboy:
Looking at the results, I can't help but notice how significant is the effect of E85 in the fuel efficiency scoring. It somewhat eclipses the effect of including time in the equation. Did that catch anyone off?
Check out rule D8.22. Politicians of the world want us to think in CO2, so the rules use it to come up with the 1.4x scaling factor. Using the engineering unit of lower heating value, you'll arrive at about the same difference in energy between the two fuels.
Check out how tight ETS (93) and Akron (E85) were in fuel efficiency. Both have wings, 10's, WR450's, Web Cams, and were driven extremely well. I don't see anything wrong with the conversion factor.
As for our success with E85, we spent more time working on engine controls and calibration this year and it paid off. It's a 399 lb car with aluminum bodywork and a $250 ECU on 13's, but we spent a lot of time on the dyno. We set CO2min particularly low and it played fun games with the fancy new efficiency formula.
Mbirt,
I wish I could see your design poster. What lambda value were you at? (at your design point, whichever you set it at)
but the issue with efficiency is that is also greatly affected by driving style and handling. If one is able to carry more kinetic energy through the corners, he would increase efficiency by a lot, without even changing the tune.
Efficiency is a holistic metric, of engine chassis and driver, rather than just engine. Therefore it seems very "political" that powertrain awards were almost identical to efficiency.
Now thermal efficiency (or BSFC) is truly an engine and engineering metric. But that is very hard to measure in a competition. Efficiency is better than economy.
We got sick and tired of having yet another single cylinder engine that was sick and tired. I have always openly admired how clean and crisp ETS's car runs. We use a Woodward MotoTron 48-pin ECU and used to run a controller program from a third party sponsor. It was an improvement from the megasquirt we used to run, but still had some issues with consistency. Woodward sponsored us with their MotoHawk utility for Simulink to create our own ECU program, but we couldn't squeeze their base engine model out of them. We took on the challenge of creating our own engine model in MotoHawk and it took far less time to get the motor running than I expected thanks to the help of a highly competent EE that joined the team. It is a simple model that only contains what we need, but remains incredibly flexible for adding functionality as needed. We no longer have phantom starting, idle, and misfire issues--it just works all the time 100% of the time. It feels so good to hit the start button and know that it will crank 2 revolutions, fire, not flare excessively, and settle to a smooth 2700 rpm idle without driver throttle input. That's what we calibrated for and our student-created program finally makes it consistent.Quote:
Originally posted by Tinomik:
Mbirt,
I wish I could see your design poster. What lambda value were you at? (at your design point, whichever you set it at)
but the issue with efficiency is that is also greatly affected by driving style and handling. If one is able to carry more kinetic energy through the corners, he would increase efficiency by a lot, without even changing the tune.
Efficiency is a holistic metric, of engine chassis and driver, rather than just engine. Therefore it seems very "political" that powertrain awards were almost identical to efficiency.
Now thermal efficiency (or BSFC) is truly an engine and engineering metric. But that is very hard to measure in a competition. Efficiency is better than economy.
As for lambda, ~.9 at certain speeds at WOT and leaner everywhere else http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
The equation for the FEV Powertrain Development award factors cost, accel, endurance, and fuel efficiency scores. I'm not sure what the multipliers are because the numbers I found were from before fuel economy was increased to 100 points.
Firstly, many thanks to Robby, Flo..., and others for posting all the pics and "hot gossip" here, as it happened!
I find it strange that the interweb enables Nigerian princes to (constantly!) keep me up-to-date with how much money they want to send me, and it lets all those pretty and scantily clad young girls tell me how much they want to be my friends, but it somehow doesn't allow the SAE to post the FSAE results here as they are collected??? Ah, well, ... progress I guess... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
~~~~~o0o~~~~~
Bob,
The age old solution to your problem is "ether in a can".
An Australian company sells this product with what I reckon is the best-ever product name, ... EVER! Here is some of their marketing... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoti...on_biggrin.gif
http://mediaserver.dwpub.com/press-r...5/SYBgirls.jpg
~~~~~o0o~~~~~
Finally, regarding the cars, I really like Robby's signature quote;
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
It seems (IMO) that all the cars at this comp still have a long way to go before "achieving perfection". There is still a great deal that can be "taken away" from the cars, and they will be much better for it. Less time taken for design and build. More time for driving and fun. And faster and more reliable cars at comp. So higher placing, and more happiness! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Z
Breaching rule IC2.2.1...Quote:
Bob,
The age old solution to your problem is "ether in a can".
An Australian company sells this product with what I reckon is the best-ever product name, ... EVER! Here is some of their marketing...
I always liked more the pre 2011 endurance running order (top design finalists and autox starting at 2 pm)
The problem was that only design finalists were allowed to run then. The rest of us top Auto-X finishers then had significantly different conditions compared to the design finals teams. In 2011 we had won auto-x, the design finalists got to run in the sun, and by the time they got to us ~5pm, it had decreased temp by at least 10F, got cloudly, and started to mist/sprinkle, then they started putting teams who had barely passed tech out there with us. Needless to say, we weren't too pleased. The weather was one thing, but running with teams 20-35 seconds slower than us was ridiculous to say the least. Now at least all the top auto-x finishers get the chance to have the same conditions as one another.Quote:
Originally posted by jpusb:
I always liked more the pre 2011 endurance running order (top design finalists and autox starting at 2 pm)
The problem was that only design finalists were allowed to run then. The rest of us top Auto-X finishers then had significantly different conditions compared to the design finals teams. In 2011 we had won auto-x, the design finalists got to run in the sun, and by the time they got to us ~5pm, it had decreased temp by at least 10F, got cloudly, and started to mist/sprinkle, then they started putting teams who had barely passed tech out there with us. Needless to say, we weren't too pleased. The weather was one thing, but running with teams 20-35 seconds slower than us was ridiculous to say the least. Now at least all the top auto-x finishers get the chance to have the same conditions as one another. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Quote:
Originally posted by theTTshark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jpusb:
I always liked more the pre 2011 endurance running order (top design finalists and autox starting at 2 pm)
That's why he said PRE 2011... The PRE 2011 format was to run slowest to fastest in the morning group, then lunch break, then design finalist, then FASTEST to SLOWEST starting with the Auto-X winner.
I don't really like that system either for the simple fact that it separates the design finalists from everyone else. As in 2009 at Michigan where the finalists ran on a wet track but then the sun came out and everyone after them ran on a dry track.
The most fair format for the purpose of determining an endurance winner, and only to determine an endurance winner, is to run either fastest to slowest or slowest to fastest based on auto-x times.
The 2011 format was a complete bastardization attempt at running an endurance. There's no other way to put that.